[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]

Letter from TJ Mason and L. Neil Smith

Letter from Thomas Knapp

Letter from TJ Mason and L. Neil Smith

Re: “REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!” by L. Neil Smith [in this issue]

Neil,

To me, this means you’ve discovered the reasons why I’m a minarchist rather than an anarchocapitalist.

1. Our statists (individually and collectively) are not automatically worse than their statists just because they’re ours.

2. Since their statists command the stolen labor of millions, it is hard for individuals to respond effectively. Particularly when technology reaches the point where a relatively few people can develop the ability to kill thousands (if not millions, or even billions).

3. People who come to the US for honest work are not the problem. People who come to the US to live off of the government are the problem. People who come to the US (or who run for public office) explicitly to destroy the American way of life (through murder, but also through more subtle means that are effective in the long term) are the biggest problem.

4. The Probability Broach and The American Zone explicitly state that terrorism—tactically, mass murder attempted by implements/energies/timelines that cannot be countered by individual self defense—is the biggest problem confronting anarchocapitalist societies based on the concept of the Zero Aggression Principle.

5. The Framer’s observation that the government can always find something for the people to fear in order to assert more power does NOT mean that such fears are always or intrinsically groundless.

6. The objective for Libertarians—both anarchocapitalists and minarchists—is to ensure that the protection of the general public from foreign statists and terrorists is accomplished without costing the law-abiding public their rights and freedoms, and that the government becomes no larger than necessary to accomplish that task. That is, to ensure that the government completes it mission of protecting the public without giving sway to the statists and/or potential tyrants it attracts.

7. Given that neither the present Democrat or Republican party as an entity (there are a few individual Republican exceptions; no Democrat exceptions of note) seems inclined to even acknowledge the objective at point 6, the sole recourse is to vote against the candidate who appears most likely to compromise the freedoms of the people if elected. In November, there is no question that person was Mrs. Clinton, and no question that she was best defeated by voting for Mr. Trump. The behavior of her disappointed sycophants since that landmark only reinforces the wisdom of this action.

My other feelings and opinions follow logically from the above assertions. One can only hope (and work for the day) that future elections will offer electable choices more in keeping with the objective at point 6.

Respectfully

TJ Mason
[email protected]

Twitter: @OneAmericanVoice

To which L. Neil Smith replied:

I hope Ken prints this. [I did!—Editor] T,J., trusting government to protect you from terrorism is like trusting a killer whale to protect you from sharks. Your Point 6. is well-taken, buy never has happened. I like the Wall. a wall has no politics, It’s just a speed-bump.

L. Neil Smith
[email protected]

To which TJ Mason replied:

I don’t disagree with your point on trusting government, though to the extent we’re successful with Objective 6, the analogy will hopefully become less… er, biting.

The only way to stop a terrorist attack, once launched, is an armed populace, trained and on guard. However, attacks with explosives (or worse, chemical/biological/nuclear) happen without warning and generally kill the attacker as quickly as they kill anyone who might respond.

One can also argue that assembling such materials signals "not joking" as much as starting to clear leather in an attack with a small arm, insofar as release to respond under the ZAP is concerned. Certainly leaving home carrying such materials assembled is a provocation. Unfortunately, once the terrorist has reached that point, only good luck—in context, usually meaning poor planning/preparation on their part—can prevent a disaster.

The armed private citizen acting impulsively to stop such an event? The hand wringing Ed and Win engaged in while investigating Hamilton House is a good reminder of the potential dangers. Not to mention the risk of prematurely triggering the event. I would not consider that better or worse than the "authorities" acting to stop the event—but it will take a lot of education, and reminders of historical truths that the progressive educators have largely been suppressing for three generations, before that could be said generally of the population of a whole. (Not to mention the reaction of those authorities who are outraged that someone stole their intended heroism, although at least the US still has a long history and tradition of making sure such reactions are generally treated as the bureaucratic malarkey that they are/foment.)

TJ Mason [email protected]
[email protected]
Twitter: @OneAmericanVoice

Was that worth reading? Then why not:

Was that worth reading? Then why not:

---